Karnataka High Court
Narasreddy S/O Govindreddy ... vs Jagannath Reddy S/O Marutireddy ... on 9 February, 2022
Bench: V Srishananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.201588/2019
BETWEEN
NARASREDDY S/O GOVINDREDDY IDDAREDDY
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCCU: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: UDBAL, TQ: HUMNABAD,
DIST: BIDAR-585411.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI R. S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE)
AND
JAGANNATH REDDY
S/O MARUTIREDDY BALGAR
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCCU: AGRICULTURE
& EX-PRESIDENT TALUKA PANCHAYAT,
HUMNABAD, R/O: MUSTARI WADI,
TQ: HUMNABAD, DIST: BIDAR-585411.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GANESH S. KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)
CRL.P FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED
16.02.2019 PASSED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.1002/2017 BY
THE HON'BLE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, COURT
HUMNABAD IN ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED
2
U/SEC.138(C) OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT
THEREBY DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though this matter is listed for admission, with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for
final disposal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The present petition is filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:
"The petitioner is praying to allow this
criminal petition and quash the order dated
16.02.2019 passed in Criminal Case
No.1002/2017 by the Hon'ble Addl. Civil Judge
and JMFC, Court Humnabad in allowing the
application filed u/Sec.138(c) of Negotiable
Instruments Act thereby dismissing the
complaint filed by the petitioner in the interest
of justice and equity.
4. Brief facts of the case are as under:
A complaint came to be filed under Section 200 of
Cr.P.C. seeking action against the respondent herein for
the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. After completion of the formality, the
process came to be issued and the respondent/accused
was being tried in C.C.No.1002/2017. After conclusion of
the trial, an application under Section 138(c) of N. I. Act
came to be filed by the respondent/accused, which was
opposed by the complainant. The learned trial Judge after
considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Yogendra Pratap Singh vs. Savitri Pandey and
Another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 713, allowed the
application and dismissed the complaint in toto.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner places
reliance on the very same judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh (Supra) and
contends that even if the learned Magistrate was
proceeded to apply the legal principles enunciated in
Yogendra Pratap Singh (Supra), the liberty should have
been reserved for the complainant in terms of paragraph
No.40 of the said judgment, which reads as under:
"40. The other question is that if the
answer to question (i) is in the negative, can
the complainant be permitted to present the
complaint again notwithstanding the fact that
the period of one month stipulated under
Section 142(b) for the filing of such a
complaint has expired."
6. The learned counsel for the respondent
opposes the petition by following the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Yogendra Pratap
Singh (Supra), which was referred by the learned
Magistrate in the impugned order and sought for dismissal
of the petition.
7. In view of the above, this Court find sufficient
force in the said submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner. Since the respondent also relying on the said
judgment, dismissal of the petition in toto is incorrect and
liberty should have been granted for the petitioner for
further prosecuting the matter in accordance with law.
Accordingly, pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed in part.
While maintaining the impugned order dated
16.02.2019 passed in C.C.No.1002/2017, the complaint is
dismissed. The liberty is reserved for the petitioner to
prosecute the respondent in accordance with law in terms
of paragraph No.40 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Yogendra Pratap Singh (Supra).
Sd/-
JUDGE
Srt
